"It Matters Not What's Between Your Legs ..."
First of all, to those who are being affected by the fires in SoCal, my prayers go out to you. I wish to do more, I want to do more but ... :shrug: Distance and time still can't be circumvented.
My family's prayers for tonight will be for all of you. I'll also pass by the chapel and light a candle.
All right. :)
On other things ... especially the "Dumbledore is gay" thingy. annearchy and hpnic06 both have links to the same article in Salon ... which, it seems, would be only the latest in the feeding frenzy that followed Rowling's announcement at Carnegie Hall.
We've gotten a whole range of reactions, from the "Ho Hum" (my own initial reaction) to the 'usual' Hosannas and paens to the almighty JKR (especially from The Leaky Cauldron) ... and the thoughtful reactions such as this. It would seem that Rowling has, again, created quite a stir ... maybe not as emotional in nature as her "interview" of two years ago but this time, probably with much more impact.
Melissa Anelli's reaction is, to my mind, the same as a lot of people around the world: "“Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality.”
Maybe.
My first reaction when I saw Ms. Anelli's comment was - again, "Ho Hum." Typical fangirl gushing, I thought.
But then, thinking about it ... I find myself questioning the statement.
For one thing, as gilly_halliwell points out in her LJ, this would have had more impact if Rowling had said so years ago rather than now, which is the same comment as some gay and human rights activists around the world. This however is a counterpoint to an observation made by someone on my f-list that the matter of Dumbeldore's sexuality is not such a big deal within the context of the books; that revealing it in the text would not 'move the plot forward' and may - in fact - even detract from the narrative.
True.
But I think they miss the point.
Hoisting Dumbledore up as the next gay icon will be, in my mind, a counterproductive endeavor - simply because Dumbledore as a character has not made that much of an impact within the context of the books. Or, perhaps more precisely, Dumbledore as he was finally revealed in the last two books does not come across as an iconic, heroic, worthy-to-be-looked-up-to character. Placed within the context of the books, he turns out to be a maninpulative, weak and somewhat dithering individual ... true, he may have been the 'Great Leader of the Light" but he has exhibited major human flaws and failings.
And it is against those major human flaws and failings where, I believe, his worth as a character and as an 'icon' for gay or even het people will rise or fall.
In my judgement, he will fall.
One reason why I went 'Ho Hum" with Rowling's 'revelation' is that the 'hints' were out there, blatant and clear ... anvil-sized, to use her favorite expression. The problem with these hints is that, to my mind, they were too obviously "hints" ... in the sense that they fall within the stereotypical images most people have of the (pardon the expression) 'screaming faggots' who are the objects of derision. In the Philippines, for example, the typical perception of gays are either the 'parlorista' - the gay hairdresser or dressmaker - and the 't-bird' or the masculine female.
These are black and white stereotypes which have done nothing to enhance or improve people's perception of homosexuals and in fact, have contributed to society's studied indifference or outright hostility towards them.
And Rowling's portrayal of Dumbledore, in DH, falls within those same parameters: from the first 'anvil-sized hint' with the obituary written by Elphias Doge whre he describes his meeting with Dumbledore as a 'mutual attraction' ... and then goes on with Skeeter's biography and comments about his 'unhealthy' relationship with Harry which, as Rebecca Traister of Salon points out, "[Rowling is] aping the leering, speculative tone of news stories about gay priests, Cub Scout leaders, and teachers accused of inappropriate relationships with their charges."
To my mind, Rowling's revelation about Dumbledore's sexuality falls within the same context - rather than helping lift the character up, this revelation only pulls him down ...
Within the context of the books (or 'canon') as we are so fond of calling them, the above revelations are seen as character assassination by Rita Skeeter - and Elphias Doge's hint (*wink* *wink*) can be called unrequited passion on his part towards a true iconic figure. In a way, Skeeter's assault on Dumbledore's character only enhances the old man's image - it makes you overlook his flaws, makes him more human than he already is.
But Rowling's 'revelation' blows that out of the water.
Were Dumbledore's flaws due to the fact that he is - or was - human or because ... he is Gay?
Que horror! Que barbaridad!
I can imagine what will happen, down the road, when some child reads through the books and asks his parents - "Why did Dumbledore do that? Why didn't he help Harry out with the Philosopher's Stone? Why didn't he help Harry in the Chamber of Secrets? He could have gone with Fawkes ... done something to help? Same with Sirius in Prisoner of Azkaban ... why drop hints to Hermione ... why didn't he join them?" And so on and so forth ...
And the parents, who may be busy with their own concerns, will answer with the easiest response that will come to mind: "Oh, it's because Dumbledore is gay."
Melissa Anelli supposedly said to Associated Press (continuing the remarks quoted above) that, "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."
As i said, typical fan girl gushing ...
At the same time, this "perception" is in contradiction to Rowling's own words:
""Neither Dumbledore nor Grindelwald ever seems to have referred to this brief boyhood friendship in later life,"' Rowling writes. "However, there can be no doubt that Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald. Was it lingering affection for the man or fear of exposure as his once best friend that caused Dumbledore to hesitate?"
Is Rowling saying that the reason why Dumbledore hesitated to go after Grindelwald - hesitated for "five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances" because he refused to face the fact that he did not want to be found out - and revealed as gay?
I'll admit that Dumbledore's reasons for hesitating are all too human flaws - everyone is afflicted by them, het, bi-, gay or lesbian. The problem is, in today's world, it is all too easy (especially for the dumbasses and intolerant bigots) to lay the blame for these all too human flaws on a person's sexual orientation. Dumbledore's mistakes and errors can no longer be 'passed off' as that all too human fear of being seen as a hero with feet of clay - but because he is 'gay.'
And therein lies, for me, the critical flaw in Rowling's now-revealed 'vision'.
I've always wanted the fiction I read to be uplifting, to be a revelation to me about how the world should be ... that heroes should be heroes - flawed yes, but able to overcome those flaws by doing, as Dumbledore once said, "what is right over what is easy" ... by overcoming their human fears and limitations, by rising above the things that hold them down. And if, in doing what is right, the hero goes through so many headaches, heartaches plus a few bruises and wounds along the way ... what of it?
That's the way of life, right?
Unfortunately, it seems that Dumbledore took the 'harder path' but not necessarily the right one. His actions and inactions - which, in context, may be seen as a form of atonement for his sins, comes across as nothing more than self-flagellation. He never really overcame his flaws, he never rose above his petty fears and selfish interests to do what should have been done ... he allowed others to do it for him - and he even manipulated them to doing it for him.
Machiavellian, maybe ... but whoever said that Machiavelli was someone to be admired or worse, emulated?
This is where Rowling's series ultimately fails, for me. The seeds for greatness were there by OotP - the last two books could have been a straightforward narration of the battle of good versus evil, where the characters were beset by their own all-too-human failings but rose above these to win ... but they became, instead, cardboard cutouts that are as two-dimensional as the cartoon figures we watch on TV or read in the funny papers. Harry's courage and bravery, Hermione's loyalty and brilliance ... all became merely cardboard figures of what they could have been, performing their actions by rote without the depth and capability they had shown before.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think Rowling simply became bored with Harry Potter ... either that or she became too lazy to move forward and blaze a different path than that which she had planned for all along. That there was potential for thrills and spills, for glorious battles and major bloodshed, is evident by the many novel-length fanfiction covering the last two years of the series ... madscientist's "Lions of Gryffindor" series or bobmin's "Sunset/Sunrise Over Britain" novels. But she didn't take the 'right' road ... she took the 'easy' one of going back to what she had written before, 'updated' it a bit ... and then threw it to the world to slobber all over.
Well ... why not? There are always the fanboys and fangirls who will swoon all over whatever she regurgitates, without applying critical thinking or thought to it.
Which brings me back to the subject heading of this rant ...
It was something one of my mentors told me, a long time ago. Although it was said in a different context, it expresses exactly what I feel right now about the "revelation."
My mentor told me (while trying to affect a Yoda-like demeanor): "It matters not what lies between your legs. What matters most is what lies between your ears - and what you do with it.
And in this context, both Dumbledore and Rowling failed.
Some 'icons'.
My family's prayers for tonight will be for all of you. I'll also pass by the chapel and light a candle.
All right. :)
On other things ... especially the "Dumbledore is gay" thingy. annearchy and hpnic06 both have links to the same article in Salon ... which, it seems, would be only the latest in the feeding frenzy that followed Rowling's announcement at Carnegie Hall.
We've gotten a whole range of reactions, from the "Ho Hum" (my own initial reaction) to the 'usual' Hosannas and paens to the almighty JKR (especially from The Leaky Cauldron) ... and the thoughtful reactions such as this. It would seem that Rowling has, again, created quite a stir ... maybe not as emotional in nature as her "interview" of two years ago but this time, probably with much more impact.
Melissa Anelli's reaction is, to my mind, the same as a lot of people around the world: "“Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality.”
Maybe.
My first reaction when I saw Ms. Anelli's comment was - again, "Ho Hum." Typical fangirl gushing, I thought.
But then, thinking about it ... I find myself questioning the statement.
For one thing, as gilly_halliwell points out in her LJ, this would have had more impact if Rowling had said so years ago rather than now, which is the same comment as some gay and human rights activists around the world. This however is a counterpoint to an observation made by someone on my f-list that the matter of Dumbeldore's sexuality is not such a big deal within the context of the books; that revealing it in the text would not 'move the plot forward' and may - in fact - even detract from the narrative.
True.
But I think they miss the point.
Hoisting Dumbledore up as the next gay icon will be, in my mind, a counterproductive endeavor - simply because Dumbledore as a character has not made that much of an impact within the context of the books. Or, perhaps more precisely, Dumbledore as he was finally revealed in the last two books does not come across as an iconic, heroic, worthy-to-be-looked-up-to character. Placed within the context of the books, he turns out to be a maninpulative, weak and somewhat dithering individual ... true, he may have been the 'Great Leader of the Light" but he has exhibited major human flaws and failings.
And it is against those major human flaws and failings where, I believe, his worth as a character and as an 'icon' for gay or even het people will rise or fall.
In my judgement, he will fall.
One reason why I went 'Ho Hum" with Rowling's 'revelation' is that the 'hints' were out there, blatant and clear ... anvil-sized, to use her favorite expression. The problem with these hints is that, to my mind, they were too obviously "hints" ... in the sense that they fall within the stereotypical images most people have of the (pardon the expression) 'screaming faggots' who are the objects of derision. In the Philippines, for example, the typical perception of gays are either the 'parlorista' - the gay hairdresser or dressmaker - and the 't-bird' or the masculine female.
These are black and white stereotypes which have done nothing to enhance or improve people's perception of homosexuals and in fact, have contributed to society's studied indifference or outright hostility towards them.
And Rowling's portrayal of Dumbledore, in DH, falls within those same parameters: from the first 'anvil-sized hint' with the obituary written by Elphias Doge whre he describes his meeting with Dumbledore as a 'mutual attraction' ... and then goes on with Skeeter's biography and comments about his 'unhealthy' relationship with Harry which, as Rebecca Traister of Salon points out, "[Rowling is] aping the leering, speculative tone of news stories about gay priests, Cub Scout leaders, and teachers accused of inappropriate relationships with their charges."
To my mind, Rowling's revelation about Dumbledore's sexuality falls within the same context - rather than helping lift the character up, this revelation only pulls him down ...
Within the context of the books (or 'canon') as we are so fond of calling them, the above revelations are seen as character assassination by Rita Skeeter - and Elphias Doge's hint (*wink* *wink*) can be called unrequited passion on his part towards a true iconic figure. In a way, Skeeter's assault on Dumbledore's character only enhances the old man's image - it makes you overlook his flaws, makes him more human than he already is.
But Rowling's 'revelation' blows that out of the water.
Were Dumbledore's flaws due to the fact that he is - or was - human or because ... he is Gay?
Que horror! Que barbaridad!
I can imagine what will happen, down the road, when some child reads through the books and asks his parents - "Why did Dumbledore do that? Why didn't he help Harry out with the Philosopher's Stone? Why didn't he help Harry in the Chamber of Secrets? He could have gone with Fawkes ... done something to help? Same with Sirius in Prisoner of Azkaban ... why drop hints to Hermione ... why didn't he join them?" And so on and so forth ...
And the parents, who may be busy with their own concerns, will answer with the easiest response that will come to mind: "Oh, it's because Dumbledore is gay."
Melissa Anelli supposedly said to Associated Press (continuing the remarks quoted above) that, "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."
As i said, typical fan girl gushing ...
At the same time, this "perception" is in contradiction to Rowling's own words:
""Neither Dumbledore nor Grindelwald ever seems to have referred to this brief boyhood friendship in later life,"' Rowling writes. "However, there can be no doubt that Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald. Was it lingering affection for the man or fear of exposure as his once best friend that caused Dumbledore to hesitate?"
Is Rowling saying that the reason why Dumbledore hesitated to go after Grindelwald - hesitated for "five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances" because he refused to face the fact that he did not want to be found out - and revealed as gay?
I'll admit that Dumbledore's reasons for hesitating are all too human flaws - everyone is afflicted by them, het, bi-, gay or lesbian. The problem is, in today's world, it is all too easy (especially for the dumbasses and intolerant bigots) to lay the blame for these all too human flaws on a person's sexual orientation. Dumbledore's mistakes and errors can no longer be 'passed off' as that all too human fear of being seen as a hero with feet of clay - but because he is 'gay.'
And therein lies, for me, the critical flaw in Rowling's now-revealed 'vision'.
I've always wanted the fiction I read to be uplifting, to be a revelation to me about how the world should be ... that heroes should be heroes - flawed yes, but able to overcome those flaws by doing, as Dumbledore once said, "what is right over what is easy" ... by overcoming their human fears and limitations, by rising above the things that hold them down. And if, in doing what is right, the hero goes through so many headaches, heartaches plus a few bruises and wounds along the way ... what of it?
That's the way of life, right?
Unfortunately, it seems that Dumbledore took the 'harder path' but not necessarily the right one. His actions and inactions - which, in context, may be seen as a form of atonement for his sins, comes across as nothing more than self-flagellation. He never really overcame his flaws, he never rose above his petty fears and selfish interests to do what should have been done ... he allowed others to do it for him - and he even manipulated them to doing it for him.
Machiavellian, maybe ... but whoever said that Machiavelli was someone to be admired or worse, emulated?
This is where Rowling's series ultimately fails, for me. The seeds for greatness were there by OotP - the last two books could have been a straightforward narration of the battle of good versus evil, where the characters were beset by their own all-too-human failings but rose above these to win ... but they became, instead, cardboard cutouts that are as two-dimensional as the cartoon figures we watch on TV or read in the funny papers. Harry's courage and bravery, Hermione's loyalty and brilliance ... all became merely cardboard figures of what they could have been, performing their actions by rote without the depth and capability they had shown before.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think Rowling simply became bored with Harry Potter ... either that or she became too lazy to move forward and blaze a different path than that which she had planned for all along. That there was potential for thrills and spills, for glorious battles and major bloodshed, is evident by the many novel-length fanfiction covering the last two years of the series ... madscientist's "Lions of Gryffindor" series or bobmin's "Sunset/Sunrise Over Britain" novels. But she didn't take the 'right' road ... she took the 'easy' one of going back to what she had written before, 'updated' it a bit ... and then threw it to the world to slobber all over.
Well ... why not? There are always the fanboys and fangirls who will swoon all over whatever she regurgitates, without applying critical thinking or thought to it.
Which brings me back to the subject heading of this rant ...
It was something one of my mentors told me, a long time ago. Although it was said in a different context, it expresses exactly what I feel right now about the "revelation."
My mentor told me (while trying to affect a Yoda-like demeanor): "It matters not what lies between your legs. What matters most is what lies between your ears - and what you do with it.
And in this context, both Dumbledore and Rowling failed.
Some 'icons'.